Video codec requirements changed

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> I think there are some objective criteria that can help
> determine the scope of risk ...

> 3) Is the codec old enough that any essential patents
> must be expired?

[The only video Yes answer was for H.261.  There were no audio Yes
answers, but MP3 might be before the specification is final.]

So why not just use these two as the baseline, at least until the
lawyers clear something newer?  That way there is at least a fallback
which is interoperable.

Are the codecs themselves so bulky that including an extra -- even one
without patents -- is unacceptable?  Or is there a fear that this will
become the normal case instead of the fallback, even if something
better is available?

-jJ

Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 04:49:23 UTC